security

International Cooperation in the Arctic: Challenges and Opportunities, by Sergey Lavrov (published on arctic.ru)

Posted by

0

From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
August 31, 2026

On 19 August, a landmark event took place in Arctic shipping. For the first time, a container ship from China arrived at the port of Murmansk via the Northern Sea Route, a vital part of the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor. In collaboration with our international partners this represents the start of a new phase in the development of Russia’s Arctic region, which accounts for at least 10 percent of the country’s GDP and is home to more than 2.5 million of our citizens. In this regard, I would like to share a number of considerations on how we assess the current state of affairs in the Arctic and how we plan to develop international cooperation there.

Russia and international partners in the Arctic

The Foundations of the Russian State Policy in the Arctic for the Period up to 2035, approved by President Vladimir Putin, focus the efforts of all government bodies on improving the quality of life for the population of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, promoting economic growth in its territories, protecting the environment and fostering mutually beneficial international cooperation. The latter is of particular importance to the Foreign Ministry, which is entrusted with coordinating functions in relations with foreign countries and intergovernmental organisations. And, I would like to emphasise, the whole range of issues relating to the development of the Arctic zone, maritime logistics and the Northern Sea Route plays an important role in the activities of the Maritime Board of the Russian Federation.

Foreign policy priorities in high latitudes have been enshrined in the currently effective Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation of March 31, 2023. In the Arctic, Russia is seeking to preserve peace and stability, reduce the level of threats to national security, and create favourable external conditions for the country’s socio-economic development. We are open to interaction with all constructively minded foreign countries displaying reciprocal readiness to put these ideas into practice. There are quite a few such countries. The vast resource, transport, and logistics potential of the Far North, its unique natural and climatic features, long-standing traditions of regional cooperation, and the rich cultural heritage of its indigenous peoples offer broad opportunities for advantageous partnership.

The countries that cooperate closely with us in the Arctic include, first and foremost, China and India. Substantive discussions on Arctic issues take place with Beijing during regular meetings between the heads of government. The specialised bilateral subcommission on the Northern Sea Route is operational, as are mechanisms for interministerial consultations and scientific exchanges. The results speak for themselves: they include the launch of regular container shipments across Russia’s northern seas, with plans to increase their frequency, and other achievements, including in polar research.

We are engaged in an active dialogue with New Delhi on the high latitudes issues. In late August, it was discussed at a meeting of the Russian-Indian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical, and Cultural Cooperation. Indian corporations are involved in developing the resource potential of our Arctic region. Indian corporations are involved in developing the resource potential of Russia’s Arctic region. According to some experts, the Arctic could become a major area of cooperation between Russia and India over the next 20 years.

There are prospects for interaction in the Far North with Brazil, Indonesia, Iran and other BRICS countries. We are also ready to develop cooperation with Belarus and other partners and allies in the CIS. South Korea and Singapore should also be mentioned as displaying interest in joint work with Russia in some Arctic projects, notwithstanding their participation in the unfriendly sanction campaign launched by the collective West against our country.

The interest of non-Arctic countries in establishing cooperation with Russia in the High North is reflected in the active participation of foreign guests in symposia and conferences devoted to Arctic issues. Numerous foreign delegations will take part in discussions during special sessions at the 11th Eastern Economic Forum, which opens on September 1 in Vladivostok. Next March, we look forward to welcoming distinguished guests from abroad to the next major international forum of the Russian Arctic, The Arctic – Territory of Dialogue, which will take place in Murmansk.

Challenges for international cooperation in the Arctic

Preserving the Arctic as an area of peace and cooperation meets the interests of the entire international community, and Russia is undoubtedly interested in this as well. Meanwhile, there are those who do not share this point of view. How else can one explain the fact that NATO countries, as well as the Alliance as a whole, are driving the region towards militarisation and creating hotbeds of international tension there?

In February 2026, NATO launched its Arctic Sentry operation, designed to expand its military presence in the High North. Intensive military preparations are underway in close proximity to our northern borders. NATO is conducting large-scale military exercises involving non-regional countries and introducing new components of its command-and-control system.

Such military activity in the Far North poses a direct threat to Russia’s security. It also increases the risk of incidents that could trigger an armed confrontation with potentially disastrous consequences.

This deliberate and systematic effort to foster an atmosphere of mistrust in the military sphere is taking place alongside Western attempts to undermine Russia’s legitimate rights in international cooperation through illegitimate financial and economic sanctions targeting legal entities and individuals from countries of the Global Majority involved in joint projects in the Arctic region.

NATO and other Western countries make no secret of their true motives, openly declaring their intention to turn the Arctic into a new front for opposing the development of Russia and its like-minded partners.

One manifestation of the West’s anti-Russian policy has been the disruption of previously effective mechanisms of multilateral cooperation in the Far North. Some have ceased to exist altogether, while others have largely lost their relevance without Russia’s participation, after Moscow was forced to suspend its engagement with them in response to hostile actions. The Arctic Council, established almost 30 years ago, on September 19, 1996, remains the only functioning intergovernmental format.

The Council is approaching its anniversary in a shape that is far from ideal. Since March 2022, as a result of actions by its Western member states, its work has effectively been frozen, leaving the organisation in a severe crisis. Ministerial meetings and sessions of its key coordinating body, the Senior Arctic Officials, have been suspended, while its capacity to implement projects has been significantly curtailed. The Council’s activities are now largely confined to expert-level contacts and remote meetings of its working bodies.

Russia is ready to resume the full-fledged work of the Arctic Council, provided that all parties engage in good faith and take into account the legitimate interests of every participant. At the same time, we are prepared for the scenario currently being pursued by NATO countries within the organisation as they attempt to discuss Arctic issues among themselves, without Russia, thereby effectively discrediting and marginalising the Arctic Council. Should this scenario materialise, Russia has the territory, logistics, technology, and reliable partners needed to carry out mutually beneficial projects and confidently implement its plans in the Arctic.

The future of international cooperation in the Arctic

A glance at the world map makes it clear that Russia has been, is, and will remain a leading Arctic state. As climate change continues and the polar ice cover recedes, experts predict that the Arctic will become increasingly accessible for transportation and resource development. The region is already playing an increasingly important role in maintaining stable trade links amid more frequent disruptions to global supply chains, particularly in the straits of the world’s oceans that are of systemic importance to the global economy.

The strategic importance of the Arctic to our country’s national interests and security will also continue to grow. We will pursue the comprehensive development of the High North and further expand the infrastructure of Russia’s Arctic zone in accordance with Russian law and the country’s development priorities.

In our economic activities, we will continue to proceed from the understanding that the Arctic maritime areas form an integral part of the World Ocean. The provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establish special rights and responsibilities for coastal states in the Arctic, apply there in full. Commitment to these rights and responsibilities was reaffirmed in the Ilulissat Declaration, adopted in 2008 by the five Arctic coastal states – Russia, Denmark, Canada, Norway, and the United States. At this stage, we see no need to develop new international legal instruments governing economic and other activities in the High North.

Russia’s foreign policy in the Arctic will remain comprehensive and pragmatic. We support the Arctic’s development as an integral part of the broader Eurasian space of security and cooperation.

Our current opponents should have learned the many lessons of history by now and understood that attempts to speak to Russia in the language of sanctions and threats are futile. Unfriendly and hostile actions have been and will continue to be met with an appropriate response, including asymmetric measures. Russia favours constructive dialogue in all regions of the world, but, when necessary, we will defend our national interests by all available means.

As President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasised, extensive work is underway in the Arctic, and we are open to cooperation with all partners willing to engage on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. Such partners, beyond the circle of NATO countries pursuing Russophobic policies, constitute the overwhelming majority. Promising areas of cooperation include the development of natural resources and the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor, including its key component, the Northern Sea Route. Priorities also include the development of industrial, transport, and tourism infrastructure. Improving the well-being of people living in the Far North, preserving the Arctic environment, and advancing scientific research will also remain key priorities. In all these areas, we see international cooperation as playing a major role.

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2136949

The Russian-Chinese Communiqué

Posted by

0

From Consortium News
May 23, 2026

After their summit in Beijing on Wednesday, the Russian and Chinese presidents issued the following communiqué, declaring the failure of neocolonial hegemony and the emergence of a new era of international relations.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing on Wednesday. (Russian President)

The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Parties), being civilizations with an ancient history, founding countries of the United Nations (U.N.) and permanent members of its Security Council, important centers of power in a multipolar world, playing a constructive role in maintaining the global balance of power and improving the system of international relations,

Guided by the ideas of the Russian-Chinese Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order of April 23, 1997, the Joint Declaration between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Order in the 21st Century of July 1, 2005, the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the Current Situation in the World and Major International Issues of July 4, 2017, the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on International Relations Entering a New Era and Global Sustainable Development of February 4, 2022, state the following:

1. Since the end of World War II, changes in the international landscape and the balance of power in the world have accelerated.

On the one hand, the wave of decolonization and the end of the Cold War led to a significant increase in the number of sovereign states in the world. Global society has become more diverse and complex. The development and international influence of states in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean have risen. The number of regional and interregional associations, spanning all areas of international relations, from politics and security to economics and humanitarian affairs, has increased, and their role in global affairs is steadily growing. Global interconnectedness and interdependence have reached levels unprecedented in human history.

Attempts by a number of states to unilaterally manage global affairs, impose their interests on the entire world, and limit the sovereign development of other countries, in the spirit of the colonial era, have failed. The system of international relations in the 21st century is undergoing a profound transformation, evolving toward a long-term state of polycentricity and the emergence of a new type of international relations.

Most states, drawing on their historical experience, have deeply recognized the dawn of a new era and the need to pursue the path of forming a more cohesive international community, as well as mutual respect for fundamental interests, equality, justice, and mutually beneficial cooperation without dividing the world into opposing regions and blocs.

On the other hand, the global situation is becoming more complex. Negative neocolonial tendencies such as unilateral forceful approaches, hegemonism, and bloc confrontation are on the rise. Fundamental, universally recognized norms of international law and international relations are regularly violated, and it is becoming more difficult for states to coordinate their actions and resolve conflicts within global governance institutions, many of which are losing their effectiveness. The global peace and development agenda is facing new risks and challenges, and there is a danger of fragmentation of the international community and a return to the “law of the jungle.”

2. Advocating for a harmonious process of establishing an equal and orderly multipolar world and a new type of international relations, including a more just and rational system of global governance, the Parties undertake and call upon the international community to adhere to the following basic principles in their relations with each other:

1) the principle of openness of the world for inclusive and mutually beneficial cooperation.

It is important to overcome the divisions of the world and promote the elimination of cross-border barriers in various spheres, while respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and identity of all sovereign states. There is no universal development path in the world, and no “first-class” countries or peoples exist. The natural differences between states in such a diverse and complex world should not be an obstacle to the development of equal, respectful, and mutually beneficial relations between them. It is essential to respect the choice of each sovereign state’s path and development model. Democratizing international political relations and building a more open global economy are in the fundamental interests of all countries. Unilateral approaches to resolving common problems, hegemony, and coercive policies in any form are unacceptable.

2) the principle of indivisible and equal security.

The emergence of a more cohesive international community amid growing common risks and challenges for humanity means that the security of one state cannot be achieved at the expense of another. All sovereign states have an equal right to security. It is necessary to pay due attention to the rational security concerns of all countries, focus on cooperation on security issues, reject bloc confrontation and zero-sum game strategies, oppose the expansion of military alliances, hybrid wars, and proxy wars, and promote the creation of a renewed, balanced, effective, and sustainable global and regional security architecture. Disagreements and disputes should be resolved peacefully, addressing the root causes of conflicts. It is unacceptable to coerce sovereign states into abandoning their neutrality.

3) the principle of democratization of international relations and improvement of the global governance system.

All states and their associations are free to choose their international partners and models of international interaction. Global hegemony is unacceptable and must be prohibited. No state or group of states should control international affairs, dictate the fate of others, or monopolize development opportunities. The system of global governance and regulation must ensure conditions for the equal participation of all states in political decision-making processes and their benefits, and it must be continuously improved. Global governance, an important instrument for regulating the system of international relations, must adhere to sovereign equality, the rule of international law, multilateralism, human-centeredness, and results-oriented approaches.

To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the role of multilateralism as the primary tool for resolving multifaceted and complex global problems and prevent the weakening of the U.N. Reform of the U.N. and other multilateral institutions must serve the interests of all humanity and consistently enhance the representativeness and voice of developing states in the international system. The U.N. Charter is the fundamental norm of international relations, and its principles must be observed in their entirety and interrelationship. Rules developed by a small group of states should not replace generally recognized international law. Large states must assume special responsibilities and missions, impose additional demands on themselves, and not abuse their advantages;

4) world civilizational and value diversity.

All human civilizations are valuable and equal in themselves; civilizations are not divided into highly developed and underdeveloped, strong and weak. The spiritual and moral system of no civilization can be considered exclusive or superior to others. All countries must advocate for a view of civilization based on equality, the mutual exchange of experiences, and dialogue. They must strengthen mutual respect, understanding, trust, and exchanges between different nationalities and civilizations, promote mutual understanding and friendship among the peoples of all countries, and protect the diversity of cultures and civilizations.

It is necessary to resolutely oppose the use of human rights as a pretext for interference in the internal affairs of other states, as well as the politicization and instrumentalization of human rights issues. Religion is an important conduit for human culture, playing a special role in building ties between peoples, and all states must create favorable conditions for interreligious dialogue and exchanges.

3. The parties will continue to develop a joint vision for the formation of a multipolar world and a new type of more equitable international relations.

https://consortiumnews.com/2026/05/23/the-russian-chinese-communique/

President Putin on signing of treaties on accession of Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and Zaporozhye and Kherson regions to Russia

Posted by

0

From the Kremlin
September 30, 2022

A ceremony for signing the treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Lugansk People’s Republic, the Zaporozhye Region and the Kherson Region to the Russian Federation took place in of the Grand Kremlin Palace’s St George Hall.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, deputies of the State Duma, senators of the Russian Federation,

As you know, referendums have been held in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The ballots have been counted and the results have been announced. The people have made their unequivocal choice.

Today we will sign treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region to the Russian Federation. I have no doubt that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the accession to Russia and the establishment of four new regions, our new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people. (Applause.)

It is undoubtedly their right, an inherent right sealed in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which directly states the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

I repeat, it is an inherent right of the people. It is based on our historical affinity, and it is that right that led generations of our predecessors, those who built and defended Russia for centuries since the period of Ancient Rus, to victory.

Here in Novorossiya, [Pyotr] Rumyantsev, [Alexander] Suvorov and [Fyodor] Ushakov fought their battles, and Catherine the Great and [Grigory] Potyomkin founded new cities. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought here to the bitter end during the Great Patriotic War.

We will always remember the heroes of the Russian Spring, those who refused to accept the neo-Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, all those who died for the right to speak their native language, to preserve their culture, traditions and religion, and for the very right to live. We remember the soldiers of Donbass, the martyrs of the “Odessa Khatyn,” the victims of inhuman terrorist attacks carried out by the Kiev regime. We commemorate volunteers and militiamen, civilians, children, women, senior citizens, Russians, Ukrainians, people of various nationalities; popular leader of Donetsk Alexander Zakharchenko; military commanders Arsen Pavlov and Vladimir Zhoga, Olga Kochura and Alexei Mozgovoy; prosecutor of the Lugansk Republic Sergei Gorenko; paratrooper Nurmagomed Gadzhimagomedov and all our soldiers and officers who died a hero’s death during the special military operation. They are heroes. (Applause.) Heroes of great Russia. Please join me in a minute of silence to honour their memory.

(Minute of silence.)

Thank you.

Behind the choice of millions of residents in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, is our common destiny and thousand-year history. People have passed this spiritual connection on to their children and grandchildren. Despite all the trials they endured, they carried the love for Russia through the years. This is something no one can destroy. That is why both older generations and young people – those who were born after the tragic collapse of the Soviet Union – have voted for our unity, for our common future.

In 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, representatives of the party elite of that time made a decision to terminate the Soviet Union, without asking ordinary citizens what they wanted, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their homeland. This tore apart and dismembered our national community and triggered a national catastrophe. Just like the government quietly demarcated the borders of Soviet republics, acting behind the scenes after the 1917 revolution, the last leaders of the Soviet Union, contrary to the direct expression of the will of the majority of people in the referendum of 1991, destroyed our great country, and simply made the people in the former republics face this as an accomplished fact.

I can admit that they didn’t even know what they were doing and what consequences their actions would have in the end. But it doesn’t matter now. There is no Soviet Union anymore; we cannot return to the past. Actually, Russia no longer needs it today; this isn’t our ambition. But there is nothing stronger than the determination of millions of people who, by their culture, religion, traditions, and language, consider themselves part of Russia, whose ancestors lived in a single country for centuries. There is nothing stronger than their determination to return to their true historical homeland.

For eight long years, people in Donbass were subjected to genocide, shelling and blockades; in Kherson and Zaporozhye, a criminal policy was pursued to cultivate hatred for Russia, for everything Russian. Now too, during the referendums, the Kiev regime threatened schoolteachers, women who worked in election commissions with reprisals and death. Kiev threatened millions of people who came to express their will with repression. But the people of Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson weren’t broken, and they had their say.

I want the Kiev authorities and their true handlers in the West to hear me now, and I want everyone to remember this: the people living in Lugansk and Donetsk, in Kherson and Zaporozhye have become our citizens, forever. (Applause.)

We call on the Kiev regime to immediately cease fire and all hostilities; to end the war it unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table. We are ready for this, as we have said more than once. But the choice of the people in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson will not be discussed. The decision has been made, and Russia will not betray it. (Applause.) Kiev’s current authorities should respect this free expression of the people’s will; there is no other way. This is the only way to peace.

Continue reading →

Russia’s draft treaty on security guarantees

Posted by

0

From the Russian Foreign Ministry

17 December 2021 13:30

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON SECURITY GUARANTEES

The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”,

guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as the provisions of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation,

recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations both in their mutual and international relations in general,

supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,

recognizing the need for united efforts to effectively respond to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,

considering the need for strict compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs, including refraining from supporting organizations, groups or individuals calling for an unconstitutional change of power, as well as from undertaking any actions aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties,

bearing in mind the need to create additional effective and quick-to-launch cooperation mechanisms or improve the existing ones to settle emerging issues and disputes through a constructive dialogue on the basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns, as well as to elaborate adequate responses to security challenges and threats,

seeking to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realizing that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,

reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons,

reaffirming their commitments under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War of 30 September 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas of 25 May 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of 15 September 1987, as well as the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989,

have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:

shall not undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party;

shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.

Article 2

The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Article 5

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.

Article 6

The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Article 8

The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.

Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

For the United States of America                                                                                                                                                                                                                            For the Russian Federation

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en

Russian Foreign Ministry statement on urgently needed dialogue and the necessity of legally binding comprehensive and indivisible security

Posted by

0

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
December 10, 2021

We note US President Joseph Biden’s readiness expressed at the December 7, 2021 talks with President Vladimir Putin to establish a serious dialogue on issues related to ensuring the security of the Russian Federation. Such a dialogue is urgently needed today when the relations between Russia and the collective West continue to decay and have approached a critical line. At the same time, numerous loose interpretations of our position have emerged in recent days. In this connection we feel it is necessary to once again clarify the following. 

Escalating a confrontation with our country is absolutely unacceptable. As a pretext, the West is using the situation in Ukraine, where it embarked on encouraging Russophobia and justifying the actions of the Kiev regime to undermine the Minsk agreements and prepare for a military scenario in Donbass.

Instead of reigning in their Ukrainian protégés, NATO countries are pushing Kiev towards aggressive steps. There can be no alternative interpretation of the increasing number of unplanned exercises by the United States and its allies in the Black Sea. NATO members’ aircraft, including strategic bombers, regularly make provocative flights and dangerous manoeuvres in close proximity to Russia’s borders.  The militarisation of Ukraine’s territory and pumping it with weapons are ongoing. 

The course has been chosen of drawing Ukraine into NATO, which is fraught with the deployment of strike missile systems there with a minimal flight time to Central Russia, and other destabilising weapons. Such irresponsible behaviour creates grave military risks for all parties involved, up to and including a large-scale conflict in Europe.

At the same time, statements are made that the issue of Ukraine’s hypothetical NATO membership concerns exclusively Kiev and the Alliance, and that nobody should interfere in this process. Let us recall, however, that NATO countries, apart from the Washington Treaty, have obligations regarding the indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and the entire OSCE space. This principle was initially proclaimed in the Helsinki Final Act and was later reaffirmed in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 1990, which states: “Security is indivisible and the security of every participating State is inseparably linked to that of all the others”, whereas in 1999, The Charter for European Security was adopted at the OSCE Istanbul summit, which stressed that the participating States “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” 

All these documents were signed by the leaders of the OSCE member-states, including all NATO countries. However, in violation of the principle of indivisible security – as well as in violation of the promises given to the Soviet leaders – NATO has been persistently moving eastwards all these years while neglecting Moscow’s concerns. Furthermore, each new member added to NATO’s frenzied anti-Russia charge.

We have been saying for a long time that such developments are inadmissible. Over the past decades we have offered a number of times to render the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic a legally binding status since the West is obviously inclined to disregard its political obligations. However, we were invariably refused. 

In this connection, as President Vladimir Putin stressed, we insist that serious long-term legal guarantees are provided, which would exclude NATO’s further advancement to the east and deployment of weapons on Russia’s western borders which are a threat to Russia. This must be done within a specific timeframe and on the basis of the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security. 

To ensure the vital interests of European security, it is necessary to officially disavow the decision taken at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest about “Ukraine and Georgia becoming NATO members” as contrary to the commitment undertaken by all the OSCE participating States “not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” 

We insist on the adoption of a legally binding agreement regarding the US and other NATO member countries’ non-deployment of strike weapons systems which threaten the territory of the Russian Federation on the territories of adjacent countries, both members and non-members of NATO. 

We also insist on receiving a concrete response from NATO to our previous proposals on decreasing tension in Europe, including the following points:

– withdrawal of regions for operative military exercises to an agreed distance from Russia-NATO contact line;

– coordination of the closest approach point of combat ships and aircraft to prevent dangerous military activities, primarily in the Baltic and Black Sea regions;

– renewal of regular dialogue between the defence ministries in the Russia-US and Russia-NATO formats.

We call on Washington to join Russia’s unilateral moratorium on the deployment of surface short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe, to agree on and introduce measures for the verification of reciprocal obligations.

Russia will shortly present draft international legal documents in the indicated areas to launch talks in respective formats. 

In particular, we will submit a comprehensive proposal on legal security guarantees as part of preparations for the next round of the Russia-US dialogue on strategic stability. We will advocate holding an in-depth discussion of the military aspects of ensuring security via defence ministries with the engagement of the foreign ministries of Russia and NATO countries.

We believe that the OSCE, which includes all countries of the Euro-Atlantic region, should not to stay on the sidelines of discussions on addressing the issues of Europe’s security. 

We urge our partners to carefully examine Russia’s proposals and start serious talks on agreements that will provide a fair and sustainable balance of interests in our common space. 

https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4991520

U.S. radars cover almost all Russian territory – Russian MoD

Posted by

0

From Rusvesna.su

March 28, 2017

US Radars Cover Almost All Russian Territory - Russian MoD | Русская весна

“The stationary radar systems of the US missile and nuclear warning system cover all possible trajectories of Russian ballistic missiles in the direction of the United States,” Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, first deputy chief of the General Staff’s Main Operational Department, said.

According to him, the zone of control pof the US stations covers almost entire Russia.

The global missile defense system being created by the United States is posing a strategic threat to both Russia and China, he emphasized.

“The US missile defense system already has a potential to intercept Chinese and Russian ballistic missiles and poses a threat to strategic nuclear forces of Russia and China, and these capabilities will only grow.”

The Russian Defense Ministry said that the US missile defense capabilities threaten almost all low orbit space stations.

According to Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, US missile defense systems also threaten space exploration activities by other countries, including Russia and China.

“Almost all low orbit stations located in the area of missile defense systems’ damage volume are under the threat of destruction. Given the global nature of the antimissile missile ships, space activities of any state, including Russia and China, are under threat,” he said.

The free use of the outer space by any country is endangered by the growing global missile defense system of the United States, the Russian military official added.

The firepower of the United States’ missile defense system threatens Russia’s deterrence posture, he said.

“Such a number of missile defense assets poses a serious threat to the Russian deterrence potential, especially taking into account the ongoing work on the modernization of missile defense systems,” Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir said.

Poznikhir estimated at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that the number of US missile defense interceptors is expected to exceed 1,000 by 2022, potentially exceeding the number of warheads deployed on Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles in the future.

Russia constantly informs the US of its concerns over the deployment an anti-ballistic missile systems, but does not receive an answer, Poznikhir said.

“Russian representatives have repeatedly drew the attention of the American side at various levels to the danger posed by the global missile defense system for the strategic balance of forces in the world. Arguments are not perceived, obvious facts are ignored.”

The US missile defense system is disproportionate to the threats from North Korea and Iran, he added.

“Under the pretext of countering the North Korean and Iranian missile threats, the US is deploying a strategic system designed to destroy Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles, which violates the balance of deterrence forces.”

He said that Russia is forces to take adequate measures in response to the US missile defense systems’ deployment. Russia is forced to take adequate response measures aimed at preventing violations of the existing balance of forces in the field of strategic weapons and minimizing the possible damage to the security of the state as a result of the further buildup of US missile defenses. But the world will not be safer from this.”

Source

http://rusvesna.su/english/1490697384

Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Federal Security Service, February 16, 2017

Posted by

0

From the Kremlin
February 16, 2017

Vladimir Putin took part in an annual expanded meeting of the Federal Security Service (FSB) Board to discuss the FSB’s results for 2016 and the priority tasks for ensuring Russia’s national security.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

These annual FSB Board meetings give us a chance to meet and not only thoroughly analyse and review the results of the agency’s work over the period, but also to discuss at length all important national security issues in general and outline the priorities for the immediate future and the longer-term.

The FSB plays a key part in protecting our constitutional order and our country’s sovereignty, and in protecting our people from threats at home and abroad.

Let me say from the start that last year’s results were positive and show good development. This concerns your work to counter terrorism and extremism, a series of successful counterintelligence operations, your efforts to combat economic crime, and other areas.

You ensured a high standard of security for major public events, including the State Duma election and regional and local elections.

I would like to thank both the executives and staff for their conscientious attitude towards their work and their timely and efficient performance of their duties.

At the same time, demands on the quality and results of your work grow constantly. The global situation has not become any more stable or better over the past year. On the contrary, many existing threats and challenges have only become more acute.

Military-political and economic rivalry between global and regional policy makers and between individual countries has increased. We see bloody conflicts continue in a number of countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. International terrorist groups, essentially terrorist armies, receiving tacit and sometimes even open support from some countries, take active part in these conflicts.

At the NATO summit last July in Warsaw, Russia was declared the main threat to the alliance for the first time since 1989, and NATO officially proclaimed containing Russia its new mission. It is with this aim that NATO continues its expansion. This expansion was already underway earlier, but now they believe they have more serious reasons for doing so. They have stepped up the deployment of strategic and conventional arms beyond the national borders of the principal NATO member states.

They are provoking us constantly and are trying to draw us into confrontation. We see continued attempts to interfere in our internal affairs in a bid to destabilise the social and political situation in Russia itself.

We also see the recent serious flare-up in southeast Ukraine. This escalation pursues the clear aim of preventing the Minsk Agreements from going ahead. The current Ukrainian authorities are obviously not seeking a peaceful solution to this very complex problem and have decided to opt for the use of force instead. What is more, they speak openly about organising sabotage and terrorism, particularly in Russia. Obviously, this is a matter of great concern.

The events and circumstances I have mentioned require our security and intelligence services, especially the Federal Security Service, to concentrate their utmost attention and effort on the paramount task of fighting terrorism.

We have already seen that our intelligence services dealt some serious blows to terrorists and their accomplices. Last year’s results confirm this: the number of terrorism related crimes has decreased.

Preventive work has also brought results. The FSB and other security agencies, with the National Antiterrorist Committee acting as coordinator, prevented 45 terrorism related crimes, including 16 planned terrorist attacks. You deserve special gratitude for this.

You need to continue your active efforts to identify and block terrorist groups’ activity, eliminate their financial base, prevent the activities of their emissaries from abroad and their dangerous activity on the internet, and take into account in this work Russian and international experience in this area.

The murder of our ambassador to Turkey was a terrible crime that particularly highlighted the need to protect our citizens and missions abroad. I ask you to work together with the Foreign Ministry and the Foreign Intelligence Service to take additional measures to ensure their safety.

You must also work to take our counterterrorism cooperation with partners abroad to a new level, despite the difficulties that we see in various areas of international life. It is a priority, of course, to intensify work with our partners in organisations such as the UN, the CSTO, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

It is in our common interests to restore dialogue with the US intelligence services and with other NATO member countries. It is not our fault that these ties were broken off and are not developing. It is very clear that all responsible countries and international groups should work together on counterterrorism, because even simply exchanging information on terrorists’ financing channels and sources and on people involved in or suspected of links with terrorism can substantially improve the results of our common efforts.

Our priorities include firmly suppressing extremism. Security methods must go hand-in-hand with constant prevention work. It is essential to prevent extremism from drawing young people into its criminal networks, and to form an overall firm rejection of nationalism, xenophobia, and aggressive radicalism. In this context, of great importance is open dialogue with civil society institutions and representatives of Russia’s traditional religions.

Counterintelligence services also face greater demands today. Operational data show that foreign intelligence services’ activity in Russia has not decreased. Last year, our counterintelligence services put a stop to the work of 53 foreign intelligence officers and 386 agents.

It is important to neutralise foreign intelligence services’ efforts to gain access to confidential information, particularly information concerning our military-technical capabilities.

This makes it a priority to improve our system for protecting classified information comprising state secrets, particularly with agencies going over to an electronic document circulation system.

I would like to note that the number of cyberattacks on official information resources tripled in 2016 compared to 2015. In this context, each agency must develop its segment of the state system for detecting and preventing cyberattacks on information resources and eliminating their consequences.

The public expects greater results in such key areas as economic security and the fight against corruption. I ask you to be particularly thorough in monitoring the funds allocated for state defence procurement (a subject I have spoken about before), major infrastructure projects, preparation of big international events, and implementing federal targeted and socially important programmes. Regrettably, we still see many cases of state funds being embezzled or misappropriated.

Reliable protection of our state borders plays a big part in ensuring our country’s comprehensive security. The priority here is to close off channels through which members of international terrorist and extremist groups enter Russia, and put a firm stop to all forms of smuggling, from weapons to drugs and various bio-resources.

Of course, we must continue the work to develop border infrastructure where it is not yet sufficiently developed, particularly in the Far East and in the Arctic.

Colleagues, let me stress that we will continue to bolster the FSB’s central and regional branches and ensure you have the most advanced arms and equipment. We will also continue to give attention to social provisions for FSB personnel and their family members.

I wish you success in protecting our national interests and the security of our country and our people. I am confident that you will continue working towards your targets with dignity.

Thank you for your attention.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53883

Russian border regions face off threat of new Ukrainian attacks

Posted by

0

August 11, 2016 –

Elena Ostryakova, PolitNavigator – 
Translated by J. Arnoldski
Additional security measures to prevent Ukrainian saboteurs from penetrating into Russian territory should be taken not only in Crimea, but also in Russia’s Voronezh, Kursk, and Belgorod regions. This was stated to PolitNavigator by Sergey Gavrilov, a State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The deputy said: 
“We consider saboteur groups’ penetration of Crimea to be an extremely worrisome phenomenon not only for Crimea, but for all regions bordering Ukraine. Earlier, extremist forces such as Right Sector announced Ukraine’s territorial claims to Russian territories – above all, the Voronezh, Belgorod, and Kursk regions.
Now is a very worrisome moment as the economic situation in Ukraine is deteriorating and the ruling clans’ resources from the further plundering the population are dwindling. Europe is losing interest in Ukraine. There are plans to drag Russia into a big war and provoke a coup by radical forces in Ukraine. 
Therefore, we must firmly respond by closing the borer, tightening checkpoint procedures, and implementing security measures in border areas.” 
Earlier, President Vladimir Putin announced a strengthening of security measures in Crimea in connection with the attempt by Ukrainian sabotage groups to breach the border. Putin stressed: “We will take additional security measures…I want to say that there will be serious additional measures, and not only.” 
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/russian-border-regions-face-off-threat.html

Global rally for zero nuclear weapons, April 1, Washington DC

Posted by

0

From Beyond Nuclear

Rally for Zero

Nuclear weapons do not equal security

On March 31 & April 1, world leaders are convening right here in DC to talk nuclear security. Not on the agenda: nuclear weapons.

That has to change. There are 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, thousands ready to fire at a moment’s notice. Nuclear weapons jeopardize global security – not strengthen it.

Join us as we rally to show world leaders that 15,000 nuclear weapons ≠ security. It’s time they take action for zero.

Who: Global Zero, the international movement to eliminate nuclear weapons, and you!

What: A rally featuring a life-size inflated nuclear missile and Global Zero movement leaders

When: Friday, April 1st, 12:00pm

Where: McPherson Square

RSVP at: http://www.globalzero.org/protest

Email ldaigle@globalzero.org for more information.

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-weapons/2016/4/1/global-zero-rally-for-zero-april-1st-washington-dc.html

Why is NATO in Yugoslavia?

Posted by

0

Excellent historical perspective on present day problems.

By Sean Gervasi
Global Research, June 22, 2015

Why Is NATO In Yugoslavia?

Editor’s Note

This paper was presented by the late Sean Gervasi at the Conference on the Enlargement of NATO in Eastern Europe and the Mediterrenean, Prague, 13-14 January 1996. It was published on Global Research when the Global Research website was launched on September 9, 2001.

The late Sean Gervasi had tremendous foresight. He understood the process of NATO enlargement several years before it actually unfolded into a formidable military force.  He had also predicted the breakup of Yugoslavia as part of a US-NATO project.

See also Sean Gervasi’s 1993 video interview

Introduction

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has recently sent a large task force into Yugoslavia, ostensibly to enforce a settlement of the Bosnian war arrived at in Dayton, Ohio at the end of 1995. This task force is said to consist of some 60,000 men, equipped with tanks, armor and artillery. It is backed by formidable air and naval forces. In fact, if one takes account of all the support forces involved, including forces deployed in nearby countries, it is clear that at least two hundred thousand troops are involved. This figure has been confirmed by U. S. defense sources. [ 1 ]

By any standards, the sending of a large Western military force into Central and Eastern Europe is a remarkable enterprise, even in the fluid situation created by the supposed end of the Cold War. The Balkan task force represents not only the first major NATO military operation, but a major operation staged “out of area”, that is, outside the boundaries originally established for NATO military action.

However, the sending of NATO troops into the Balkans is the result of enormous pressure for the general extension of NATO eastwards.

If the Yugoslav enterprise is the first concrete step in the expansion of NATO, others are planned for the near future. Some Western powers want to bring the Visegrad countries into NATO as full members by the end of the century. There was resistance to the pressures for such extension among certain Western countries for some time. However, the recalcitrants have now been bludgeoned into accepting the alleged necessity of extending NATO.

The question is: why are the Western powers pressing for the expansion of NATO? Why is NATO being renewed and extended when the “Soviet threat” has disappeared? There is clearly much more to it than we have so far been told. The enforcement of a precarious peace in Bosnia is only the immediate reason for sending NATO forces into the Balkans.

There are deeper reasons for the dispatch of NATO forces to the Balkans, and especially for the extension of NATO to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in the relatively near future. These have to do with an emerging strategy for securing the resources of the Caspian Sea region and for “stabilizing” the countries of Eastern Europe — ultimately for “stabilizing” Russia and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. This is, to put it mildly, an extremely ambitious and potentially selfcontradictory policy. And it is important to pose some basic questions about the reasons being given for pursuing it.

For the idea of “stabilizing” the countries which formerly constituted the Socialist bloc in Europe does not simply mean ensuring political stability there, ensuring that the regimes which replaced Socialism remain in place. It also means ensuring that economic and social conditions remain unchanged. And, since the so-called transition to democracy in the countries affected has in fact led to an incipient deindustrialization and a collapse of living standards for the majority, the question arises whether it is really desirable.

The question is all the more pertinent since “stabilization”, in the sense in which it is used in the West, means reproducing in the former Socialist bloc countries economic and social conditions which are similar to the economic and social conditions currently prevailing in the West. The economies of the Western industrial nations are, in fact, in a state of semi-collapse, although the governments of those countries would never really acknowledge the fact. Nonetheless, any reasonably objective assessment of the economic situation in the West leads to this conclusion. And that conclusion is supported by official statistics and most analyses coming from mainstream economists.

It is also clear, as well, that the attempt to “stabilize” the former Socialist bloc countries is creating considerable tension with Russia, and potentially with other countries. Not a few commentators have made the point that Western actions in extending NATO even raise the risks of nuclear conflict. [2]

It is enough to raise these questions briefly to see that the extension of NATO which has, de facto, begun in Yugoslavia and is being proposed for other countries is to a large extent based on confused and even irrational reasoning. One is tempted to say that it results from the fear and willfulness of certain ruling groups. To put it most bluntly, why should the world see any benefit in the enforced extension to other countries of the economic and social chaos which prevails in the West, and why should it see any benefit in that when the very process itself increases the risks of nuclear war?

The purposes of this paper are to describe what lies behind the current efforts to extend NATO and to raise some basic questions about whether this makes any sense, in both the narrow and deeper meanings of the term.

NATO in Yugoslavia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 with the stated purpose of protecting Western Europe from possible military aggression by the Soviet Union and its allies.

With the dissolution of the Communist regimes in the former Socialist bloc in 1990 and 1991, there was no longer any possibility of such aggression, if there ever really had been. The changes in the former Communist countries made NATO redundant. Its raison d’etre had vanished. Yet certain groups within the NATO countries began almost immediately to press for a “renovation” of NATO and even for its extension into Central and Eastern Europe. They began to elaborate new rationales which would permit the continuation of business as usual.

Continue reading →